= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FiftyTwo comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (381)
Why?
Some of those guys certainly seem irrational and stuck in their ways, but... to be honest, if there are any coherent responses to Moldbug & co. I have yet to see them. It's not like there's a whole bunch of literature that they're stubbornly ignoring. If you actually brought them rational arguments that they were forced to confront, I think at least some of them would update their beliefs - this is LessWrong, after all.
EDIT: In response to your edit: (For those reading, it initially just said "I doubt this very much.")
This doesn't seem obvious to me. Could you list those reasons?
The mainstream of political philosophy and political science is pretty much opposed to their positions. While none of it specifically addresses the topics covered by Molbuggians and neo-reactionaries in the terms they use, the burden of proof seems to be on them to prove there is something massively wrong with the mainstream before the mainstream has to specifically craft responses to their arguments.
(For reference here's an example of what I mean by mainstream 'progressive' writing which argue that democracy has empirically better outcomes for its citizens and outlines democratic peace theory )